WI American slaveholders try a coup instead of secession

samcster94

Banned
Usually they work because the "machinery of state" is relatively strong and centralized, and there is more loyalty to obeying the orders of the "machine" than to the constitutional process of choosing the head of government. The coupsters don't crush resistance - they neutralize possible resisters at the key moment (cut off phones and telegraphs; roadblocks at key points, the more difficult to rush the better; commanders persuaded to wait and see) and then present them with a fait accompli. In many cases the old regime is demoralized and either fails to resist the coup or to muster any resistance afterward.

As noted, none of these factors would apply in the U.S. in 1860.
Spain in the 1930's pulled off a failed one, and it turned into a bloody war with the fascist/monarchist side winning after three years. Then again, the tech level was different(telephones and cars existed), Spain was more centralized, their military was very right wing while the government was left wing, pessimism over future(losing Cuba to the U.S. for instance),and there wasn't the same political culture(centuries of monarchy, Spain had just been turned into an extremely left wing Republic by 1930's standards). For the South to attempt a coup, even a failed one, would be out of character when secession was a clearly more viable political option.
 

samcster94

Banned
Spain was a very unusual case, in that a large force was committed to the rebellion whether it succeeded at once or not. But then Spain has several odd historical characteristics. For instance, the "pronunciamento", a sort of slow-motion public coup d'état.
Indeed it did(bringing back kings, unlike Portugal, for instance). The late Antebellum South did not have that trait of course.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not going to happen without a number of POD going back decades. The mindset of the pre-ACW U.S. was much more focused on your home state being your true home land, followed by these United States (Shelby Foote notes that prior to the War the customary way that action by the United States were reported went "the United States ARE"; after the war it became "the United States IS". The War changed the term United States from a plural to a singular.) This the key to so many Regular officers resigning commissions to fight with their states, they saw it as a matter of actually defending their "home". This would not be the case in any sort of coup attempt, any such effort would be seen as a despicable and dishonorable act. If a state governor, without a secession vote that was approved by the state legislature, had attempted to seize U.S. military bases, it is far more likely that the militia officers would place him under arrest than follow his orders. If the militia DID follow the orders in those circumstances, as likely as not (using Virginia again as the example) they would have found themselves confronted by the Regular Army led by Robert E Lee.

Military coups are a REALLY hard sell in the U.S., that goes all the way back to the example of Washington's farewell to his officers. In 2017 you would be hard pressed to get sufficient officers to go against their Oath, in 1860 it would be close to impossible.
 
Given that 1860 military actually had Officers willing to kill their former countrymen, violate their oaths, or regard resigning as sufficient fig leaf before treason, I'm going to disagree strenuously that the modern military would be easier to subvert than that one.

On the resignation, I regard it as a fig leaf because they resigned in the full intention of taking up arms against the government and knowing that they would be violating their oath.
 
Last edited:
Given that 1860 military actually had Officers willing to kill their former countrymen, violate their oaths, or regard resigning as sufficient fig leaf before treason, I'm going to disagree strenuously that the modern military would be easier to subvert than that one.

On the resignation, I regard it as a fig leaf because they resigned in the full intention of taking up arms against the government and knowing that they would be violating their oath.


Though in any case the regular Army would hardly figure. It was only about 16,000 men most of whom were out west.

The coup would have to be conducted by nearby State Militia - presumably Virginia and perhaps Maryland.
 
Last edited:
Though in any case the rgular Army would hardly figure. It was only about 16,000 men most of whom were out west.

The coup would have to be conducted by nearby State Militia - presumably Virginia and perhaps Maryland.

Which is another reason the coup fails from a political point of view; said militia would have to be operating under the perveiw of their State governor (or close enough as to make no difference), especially if they're getting to arsenals for cannon/shot, unless their commanders are also bucking state authority. In the former case, the coup loses legitimacy on the national level as its not actually a national force; just a cable of governors giving the order, and you've just legitimized any Northern or even neutral state's own military maneuvers.
 
Not going to happen without a number of POD going back decades. The mindset of the pre-ACW U.S. was much more focused on your home state being your true home land, followed by these United States (Shelby Foote notes that prior to the War the customary way that action by the United States were reported went "the United States ARE"; after the war it became "the United States IS". The War changed the term United States from a plural to a singular.)

That's a famous aphorism, but it's not strictly true. I did some research on this a few years ago. I went through a lot of official documents - Presidential "State of the Union" messages (they weren't delivered as speeches until fairly late, well after the War), and U.S. treaties. (Texts obtained from the Avalon Project at Yale.) I located every case where the U.S. was referred to unambiguously as a singular or plural. The results showed a definite trend from plural to singular, starting before the War and completing well after it. I don't recall that the War marked a major shift.

Incidentally, there was one actual secessionist coup d'état plot - Missouri governor Claiborne Jackson plotted to seize control of the Federal Arsenal in St. Louis with crypto-secessionist state militia, and present Unionists in the state with a fait accompli. (This might be better described as a "self-coup" - a seizure of extralegal power by the sitting chief executive.) The militia were even supplied with cannon by the Confederacy (taken from the Arsenal in Baton Rouge). The plot was pre-empted by the Union army commander in Missouri, who mustered several thousand Unionists as an unofficial "Home Guard", and one day surrounded the militia camp and took them all prisoner.

There's a good PoD: what if a different Union commander had failed to act in time? (The OTL commander, Nathaniel Lyon, was a fanatical Unionist given to bold, forceful action. He had replaced a cautious, elderly officer.)
 
It is one thing for a governor to try and swing his state from one side to the other once the crisis has arrived, especially in a divided state. It is another to seize the national government. Secession was seen by many as a legal, if extreme, measure. A coup against the national government would be clearly illegal/extralegal. The majority of the active duty officers who eventually went south would not do so to support this sort of coup. Of course some would, but many would not.
 
Top